Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 538 (KAR)

KRISHNAPPA v. C. V. VEENA

2006-07-03

C.R.KUMARASWAMY, V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2006
JUDGMENT The appellants and respondents 1 to 5 are the elected directors of 8th respondent-Society in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called as 'the Act and Rules' for short), which is managed by its Chief Promoter. Respondents 1 to 5 tendered their resignation to their Managing Committee Membership to Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 1-12-2004 as the Chief Executive Officer was not appointed to the Society. The said resignation letters had been returned on 24-1-2005 because the ARC.S. has no jurisdiction to accept the same under Section 29-B of the Act. Thereafter, they submitted the resignation letters on 19-3-2005 to the Chief Promoter, who forwarded them to the ARC.S. The same were accepted by the ARC.S. on 19-4-2005 except the 5th respondent as he withdrew his resignation on 16-4-2005. The same was challenged in W.P. No. 14139 of 2005. Since the acceptance of resignation letters were withdrawn by the A.R.C.S., the said writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. Thereafter, again the ARC.S. passed order on 13-9-2005 holding that the resignation letters are deemed to have been accepted. The said order was confirmed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies by his order dated 17-4-2006. The writ petition filed challenging those orders was allowed by the learned Single Judge, which is assailed by the appellants in this writ appeal. 2. Mr. S.R. Hegde Hudlamane, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that since the 8th respondent-Society is newly formed and the Chief Executive is not appointed, the Chief Promoter must be construed as the Chief Executive for all purposes under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act till such officer is appointed. The said contention cannot be accepted by us, as the definition of Chief Executive under Section 2(a-3) of the Act reads as under: "2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.- (a-3) "Chief Executive" means any employee of a Co-operative Society by whatever designation called and includes an official of the State Government, an employee of any other institution or Co-operative Society who discharges the functions of a Chief Executive under the Act, Rules or the bye-laws". The Chief Promoter is neither an employee of the Society nor an official of the State Government. The Chief Promoter is neither an employee of the Society nor an official of the State Government. Section 29-B of the Act deals with resignation of members and it reads thus: "29-B. Resignation of a Member.-A member of a Committee, other than a nominated member, may resign his membership in writing under his hand and delivered to the Chief Executive and his seat shall become vacant on the expiry of fifteen days from the date of such delivery unless within the said period of fifteen days he withdraws such resignation in writing under his hand and delivered to the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive shall place the letter of resignation before the meeting of the Committee convened next after the delivery of such letter". From the above it is clear that resignations of the Managing Committee members of the Society have to be submitted to the Chief Executive and not to the Chief Promoter. In the instant case, admittedly there was no Chief Executive appointed to the 8th respondent-Society. In his absence, question of tendering resignation letters by the Committee members does not arise at all. If the resignation letters were tendered by the Committee members to the Chief Promoter, in the eye of law there is no valid resignation tendered by them and action taken on such letters by him also is not legal and valid. 3. It is curious to note that the A.R.C.s. in the first instance rightly returned the resignation letters to the Chief Promoter on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to accept the same. Subsequently, the resignation letters forwarded by the Chief Promoter have been accepted by him. More interestingly, when the acceptance was questioned in W.P. No. 14139 of 2005, he withdrew the order and after disposal of the writ petition, he again ordered that the resignation letters are deemed to have been accepted. Such conduct of the A.R.C.S. is highly deprecated. He cannot exercise his power according to his whims and fancy in the matter of acceptance of the resignations of the Committee members he shall act strictly in accordance with law as his action will have civil consequences upon such members and he is required to discharge his functions strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules in the interest of the Society. 4. 4. Rightly the learned Single Judge quashed the orders impugned in the writ petition holding that the Administrator appointed to the Society cannot be sustained in law. The learned Single Judge also rightly held that in the eye of law respondents 1 to 5 have not tendered their resignations from their Managing Committee Membership of the 8th respondent-Society and they continued as such. Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.